Women with short tempers read no further: that office-based research favourite - women are rubbish/always taking time off to have babies/lucky they get paid a tenth of a male salary - is back. This time it's 50 million times more annoying than usual.

According to the headline on a release from management consultancy Hay Group, "Women [are] less ambitious than men". Apparently, there is a "significant gap in motivation and ambition levels between men and women". Do I detect a slightly accusatory tone there? The implication that women, frankly, need to raise their game slightly? It's a wonder they haven't added some ludicrous shoe-shopping aside to beef-up the condescension.

Anyway, it's funny how statistics work: "Men are 73% more likely than women to describe themselves as highly motivated at work," says Hay Group. That sounds very bad, indeed - as though there are great armies of men hanging around being "highly motivated" while the women ... well, yes, they've probably sloped off to do that shoe shopping.

But guess what? When I request the actual figures from Hay Group's press people (funnily enough, they're not printed on the release) it turns out that a mere 19% of men describe themselves as highly motivated. So, while it's a bad thing that only 11% of women do the same - come on ladies! - it's not quite so catastrophic as it might first appear. In fact, I'd go so far as to put it in these terms: 89% of women prefer gadding about, but so do 81% of men. Funny how that looks completely different, no?

Goodness, I'm cross - but mostly because this study does (amazingly) have a decent point to it, (not that you'd ever have guessed it from the blah blah gender divide blah blah rubbish).

What this study actually shows is that men and women say they are motivated by different things at work, but that the workplace is still generally geared towards those male interests. "Our research suggests that the job roles we create, values we prize and training we provide still fail to motivate women to the same degree as men," says Hay Group director Emmanuel Gobillot.

Next time, how about a different headline: "Women doing brilliantly despite employers' macho ways." That way, you might not trample all over the people your research allegedly helps.

Vicky Frost

UK firms move to tackle domestic abuse

Two women a week are killed by their male partners. An incident of domestic violence is reported to the police every minute. One in four women and one in six men will experience domestic violence in their lifetime.

But it's not just a domestic issue. According to a US study in the 1990s, more than half of abused women missed three days' work a month. Domestic violence can result in reduced productivity at work, more errors, greater employee turnover and a rise in absenteeism. It's reckoned that this costs UK companies an estimated £2.7bn a year.

Yet, only one in three employers offers formal support to staff suffering from domestic abuse. Many organisations are unaware that domestic violence is a workplace issue, says the charity Refuge, and yet the workplace is where women can be most vulnerable. "Although a woman can access safe emergency accommodation, she may still need to work - and her assailant is likely to know where, so they can easily target her there," says Refuge chief executive Sandra Horley, pointing to a 2001 US study that found 75% of victims of domestic violence are targeted at work through abusive phonecalls, emails and even physical assaults.

The Corporate Alliance to End Partner Violence, in which progressive US companies exchange information and collaborate on projects, has been around since 1995. Although it has taken British employers a decade longer to set up an equivalant, the Corporate Alliance Against Domestic Violence, more than 300 UK companies have now joined.

This week, alliance member KMPG warned staff that if they used work emails or phones to harass a current or former partner, they would be sacked. KMPG talked of a crossing of the line "between personal life and work". Home and the workplace are increasingly indiscernible. Most relationships are made there, including those that become violent or abusive. So, if we want employers to mind their own business, they should make tackling domestic violence and supporting abused staff their business.

Matt Keating

30-second interviews can be bad for your ego

Tony Elston from Sale writes to tell us about what he thinks may have been the shortest job interview ever. "The Mayfair recruitment agency rang to offer me a second interview, this time with the managing director of a television company's airtime sales department. 'By the way, some find his style a little ... odd.' I was unfazed: as a recent graduate, I understood the real world.

"The MD stood. Shook my hand and said: 'Nice to meet you.' Sat down again at his huge desk. Resumed his work.

"My God, that was it? After the initial shock, I had to replay the scene mentally to see how I had gone from interviewee to evacuee in 30 seconds.

"How I had initially been led past a framed gold disc congratulating the company on an advertisement which had helped sell 125,000 Richard Clayderman LPs.

"How the MD had glared first at my CV, then at me. 'Hi.' He was Australian. 'You're applying for a job in the media, right?' he barked. 'There's nothing on your CV about involvement with the media during your degree.' He stood. Shook my hand. Said: 'Nice to meet you.' Sat down again. Resumed his work.

"Today, I could seamlessly tailor my limited employment experience to any post under the sun. But back then, my CV simply listed everything I thought CVs contained, irrespective of the post applied for. And I paid the price.

"A few minutes afterwards, I stumbled into Covent Garden to meet a couple of friends. My self-esteem had plummeted to an all-time low. I got extremely drunk. When my friend drove me home, I repeatedly tried to get off with his girlfriend in the back seat.

"The couple are still talking to me. But I sometimes wonder whether anyone has ever successfully talked to my interviewer."